Parsing and Memory



Relative Clause Sentence Processing Discourse Representation Distinct Representation Syntactic Representation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Carlson, K. (1998). Processing of gaps in a DP-PP frame. U Mass manuscript.Google Scholar
  2. Clifton, C., Frazier, L., & Deevy, P. (in progress). Feature manipulation in sentence processing.Google Scholar
  3. Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (in progress). Processing d-linked phrases.Google Scholar
  4. De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. (1993). Some observations on the universality of the late closure strategy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 189–206.Google Scholar
  5. Dickey, M. (1996). Constraints on the sentence processor and the distribution of resumptive pronouns. In M.W. Dickey & S. Tunstall (Eds.) Linguistics in the laboratory, 19, 157–192.Google Scholar
  6. Frazier, L. (1985). Modularity and the representational hypothesis. In S. Berman, J. Choe & J. McDonough (Eds.), Proceedings of the Northeastern Linguistics Society, 15, 131–144.Google Scholar
  7. Frazier, L. (1990). Exploring the architecture of the language processing system. In G.T.M. Altmann (Ed.) Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (in progress). Comprehension of sluiced sentences.Google Scholar
  9. Frazier, L., Munn, A., & Clifton, C. (in progress). Processing coordinate structures.Google Scholar
  10. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 65, 1–76.Google Scholar
  11. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (in press). Syntactic attachment and anaphor resolution: two sides of relative clause attachment. In M. Crocker, Pickering & C. Clifton, Jr. (Eds.) Architecture and mechanisms for language processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. (1987). Against modularity. In J. L. Garfield (Ed.) Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language understanding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-Situ: Movement and unselective binding. In E. J. Reuland & A. G. B. ter Meulen (Eds.) The representation of indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Rad&00F3;, J. (1997). Processing Hungarian: The role of topic and focus in language comprehension. University of Massachusetts doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  16. Schafer, A., Carter, J., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1996). Focus in relative clause construal. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 135–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Seely, D. (1987). The dependence hypothesis: Toward a theory of processing parasitic gaps. Proceedings of WCCFL, 6, Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
  18. Stabler, E. (1994). The finite connectivity of linguistic structure. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier & K. Rayner (Eds.) Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 303–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Smith, E. E., & Jonides, J. (1997). Working memory: A view from neuroimaging. Cognitive Psychology, 33, 5–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Stromswold, K., Caplan, D., Alpert, N., & Rauch, S. (1996). Localization of syntactic comprehension by position emission tomography. Brain and Language, 52, 452–473.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Williams, E. (1997). Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 577–628.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations